<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Still catching up on old posts...<br>
<br>
<br>
Because the yeshiva thrives on lomdus, without which learning would be a<br>
lot less structured and less interesting. Therefore, they lean toward<br>
textualists.<br>
<br>
:-)BBii!<br>
-Micha<br>
</blockquote></div><br>AISI the dichotomy is simpler<br><br>The Yeshivisher World has recently championed Mussar, Pietism, Frumkeit and a quasi Hassidic iconization of G"dolim as trumping rigorous lamdus. [ther are excpetions, an dBrisk might be one]<br>
<br>While the Old Litvisher world championed Rigorous Lamdus and kocha d'heteira addif and saw many humros as optional or even counter-productive <br><br>So the MB maps out well for the frummer, mystical, approach and the AhS maps out close to the analytical approach.<br>
<br>I don't recall RDL's approach to Pesak but he was considered Novel im his time in that he had talmiddim read rishonim [particuarly shita mekubbetzes] in the shiur inside. IOW a rigorous approach to textual analysis. in most Yeshivos, Rishonim are "spoken out" and often not so precisely.<br>
<br>Bottom line, analytical types that I know all seem to prefer the AhS. <br><br>And FWIW I would push Tur-Beis Yosef for Beis Midrash level and above as even better. <br><br>Good Shabbos<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv - Best Regards,<br>
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/</a><br>
<br>